S. 344, the “South Carolina Equine Advancement Act,” creates a new statutory chapter in Title 11 to establish the South Carolina Equine Commission and a framework for licensed advance deposit account wagering (ADW) tied to horse racing events. The bill defines key terms such as pari-mutuel wagering, horse racing, historical horse racing, and ADW, and limits the wagering authorized under the chapter to live or simulcast horse racing. It also sets out who may apply for an ADW license, what information must be included in an application, annual license terms and fees, background-check requirements, and a 30-day decision window after background checks are completed.
The bill also creates the Equine Industry Development Fund in the State Treasury. Revenue for the fund would come primarily from a percentage of wagers placed through ADW licensees, along with donations and other gifts, and the fund would be used for grants to support equine-industry projects. The stated purposes include supporting horse-breeding and horse-residency incentive programs, horse-training centers, and equine-related education and workforce development, including veterinarians, equine business operations, and youth mentoring. The Department of Revenue would provide administrative support to the commission, and the commission would be required to report annually to the Governor and General Assembly.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it would add a new regulatory structure for horse-racing wagering and create a new state commission with licensing, rulemaking, enforcement, and grant-making authority. It also makes unlicensed ADW operations and unauthorized pari-mutuel wagering misdemeanors, with fines and possible imprisonment, and bars minors under 18 from wagering or opening wagering accounts. The committee amendment further narrows the commission’s authority by expressly prohibiting it from using rulemaking or other agency action to expand gambling or to approve or regulate historical horse racing, slot machines, video games of chance, or other gambling devices.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available materials is generally supportive but cautious. The Senate Finance Committee recommended the bill “do pass with amendment,” indicating approval of the concept while tightening several provisions. The amendments suggest a desire to preserve the bill’s equine-industry development goals while clearly limiting the scope of legalized wagering and the commission’s authority.
The main points of contention appear to center on gambling scope and regulatory boundaries. The committee’s changes emphasize that ADW is limited to wagering by individuals physically present at horse-racing events and exclude historical horse racing and other gaming devices. The bill also adds detailed advertising restrictions, responsible-gaming disclosures, age-based marketing limits, privacy requirements, and self-exclusion protections, which likely reflect concern about consumer protection and youth exposure. No recorded floor votes or committee transcript debate were provided, so the available evidence of contention comes primarily from the amendment language itself.
The bill would add Chapter 61 to Title 11 of the South Carolina Code, creating the South Carolina Equine Commission, an ADW licensing system, criminal penalties for unauthorized wagering activity, and the Equine Industry Development Fund. It would also require the commission to adopt regulations, administer grants, and oversee horse-racing-related wagering and industry support programs, while expressly limiting the commission’s authority so it cannot expand gambling or regulate historical horse racing and similar gaming devices.
The available record shows a generally favorable but carefully constrained posture toward the bill. The Senate Finance Committee recommended passage with substantial amendments, suggesting support for the equine-industry development framework and regulated wagering concept, while also signaling concern about gambling expansion, consumer safeguards, and the need to narrowly define the commission’s powers.
The biggest areas of contention are the bill’s relationship to gambling expansion and the line between horse-racing wagering and broader gaming. The committee amendments specifically remove any implication that the commission could authorize historical horse racing, slot machines, video games of chance, or other gambling devices, and they narrow definitions to live or simulcast horse racing. Additional contention appears around advertising and responsible-gaming rules, including restrictions on marketing to minors, self-excluded bettors, and vulnerable audiences, which indicate concern about the social effects of wagering.